Thursday, February 17, 2005
Feldspar Crystals From Pumice Clasts
Andromeda Rather-Gates Nature Magazine!
Andromeda is often asked to comment on paleoanthropological developments and so it is with the latest story that certain skulls have been identified as the earliest Homo Sapiens -- 195,000 years old. Calculations based on human DNA show the human race began about 200,000 years ago.
Now, we buy the 198,000-year upper limit and 104,000-year lower limit based on argon-dating of crystals in a Member I tuff and a Member III tuff. But after that, the evidence begins to fall apart. What is Nature Magazine hiding?
A little internet sleuthing reveals that McDougall, et al., rely on the crazy theory that the members were rapidly deposited. Otherwise they could not conclude the skulls are very close to the upper age limit. This crazy theory is based on the correlation of the depositions with ages of Mediterranean sapropels. But Leakey dated mollusc shells found with the bones at 130,000 years. And one skull appears to be much more primitive than the other. These two facts cast doubt on the rapid-deposition hypothesis, but McDougall, et al., don't like to talk about that, now do they?
What isn't Nature Magazine telling us? Well, for one thing, other than including his name on the first page of the article, they completely fail to mention the involvement of one Francis H. Brown (his photo says it's clickable, but is it?)! Prof. Frank Brown (if that is his real name) has been peddling this crazy theory for quite some time:
Well may you ask, why would Dr. Brown be trying to foist this crazy theory on us? In order to keep getting his fabulous prizes!
Andromeda is often asked to comment on paleoanthropological developments and so it is with the latest story that certain skulls have been identified as the earliest Homo Sapiens -- 195,000 years old. Calculations based on human DNA show the human race began about 200,000 years ago.
Now, we buy the 198,000-year upper limit and 104,000-year lower limit based on argon-dating of crystals in a Member I tuff and a Member III tuff. But after that, the evidence begins to fall apart. What is Nature Magazine hiding?
A little internet sleuthing reveals that McDougall, et al., rely on the crazy theory that the members were rapidly deposited. Otherwise they could not conclude the skulls are very close to the upper age limit. This crazy theory is based on the correlation of the depositions with ages of Mediterranean sapropels. But Leakey dated mollusc shells found with the bones at 130,000 years. And one skull appears to be much more primitive than the other. These two facts cast doubt on the rapid-deposition hypothesis, but McDougall, et al., don't like to talk about that, now do they?
What isn't Nature Magazine telling us? Well, for one thing, other than including his name on the first page of the article, they completely fail to mention the involvement of one Francis H. Brown (his photo says it's clickable, but is it?)! Prof. Frank Brown (if that is his real name) has been peddling this crazy theory for quite some time:
deposition of the Kibish Formation near the northern end of the basin is episodic, and new dates suggest that each episode of deposition can be correlated with particular sapropels in the Mediterranean sequenceAnd wasn't he just trying the same crazy theory with volcanic ashes just a while ago?
Well may you ask, why would Dr. Brown be trying to foist this crazy theory on us? In order to keep getting his fabulous prizes!
